APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Nicholas Griffin, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. The post-conviction proceeding attacked his conviction of second degree murder with a Range II sentence of 26 years pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Petitioner asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to adequately prepare for trial and failed to file a motion to suppress the recordings of his jail calls with his mother. Petitioner further argues that trial counsel and his mother pressured him into accepting the guilty plea. Following a review of the briefs of the parties and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Delarris Jones A/K/A Cedric Jones, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

In this action involving a commercial lease, the lessor corporation filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the Blount County General Sessions Court (“general sessions court”) seeking termination of the lease and eviction of the lessee corporation, which operated a gas station on the leased premises. Following a bench trial, the general sessions court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On appeal to the Blount County Circuit Court (“trial court”), the lessor filed an amended complaint alleging several breaches of contract by the lessee. Following a four-day bench trial, the trial court dismissed the lessor’s complaint upon finding, inter alia, that the lessee had not materially breached the lease. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Juvonta Carpenter, of two counts of first- degree murder, two counts of first-degree felony murder, and one count of aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus nine years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. The defendant also contends the trial court erred in admitting partially redacted police statements and in imposing a partial consecutive sentence. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a State appeal, filed by the State Attorney General and Reporter, from an Agreed Order (“AO”) entered between Petitioner, Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman, and the District Attorney General for Davidson County. The AO amended Petitioner’s capital sentence to life imprisonment. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceedings based upon the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (2016). The post-conviction court granted the motion and set the matter for a hearing. At the hearing, the parties presented to the court an AO stating that Petitioner’s sentence would be amended in exchange for his waiving and dismissing all post-conviction claims. The post-conviction court accepted the AO and subsequently entered an amended judgment of conviction. The State appealed, arguing that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to accept the AO and amend Petitioner’s sentence. Petitioner responds that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the State consented to the AO in the post-conviction court, thereby foreclosing any right to appeal. We have thoroughly considered the briefs and arguments of both parties as well as the amici curiae. We conclude that the State has a right to appeal to challenge the jurisdiction of the post-conviction court. We also conclude that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to accept the AO and to amend Petitioner’s final judgment of conviction because it did not comply with the statutory requirements for granting relief under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Therefore, we vacate both the AO and the amended judgment of conviction and remand this case to the post-conviction court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A city board of zoning appeals granted a variance request on September 17, 2018, and the city codes director checked a box on the variance application indicating that the request was approved.  At its next meeting, on October 15, 2018, the board approved the minutes from its September 17, 2018 meeting.  Two companies that opposed the variance filed a sworn petition for writ of certiorari on December 5, 2018, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 27-9-102, a statute providing that such actions must be filed within sixty days of the entry of the board decision.  The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Because we have determined that, under the facts of this case, the board’s decision was not entered until the approval of the minutes at the October 15, 2018 board meeting, we conclude that the petition for certiorari was timely filed.  We, therefore, reverse the decision of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Kevin Grammer, of aggravated robbery, theft of property over $1000, felony evading arrest, speeding, reckless driving, felony reckless endangerment, failure to exercise due care, disobeying a stop sign, and driving on a suspended license. The trial court imposed partial consecutive sentences for an effective sentence of fourteen years’ confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive terms. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion insofar as it holds that the post-conviction trial court must first determine that a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief before a District Attorney General is allowed to negotiate a settlement of criminal convictions and/or sentences which are the subject of a post-conviction proceeding.  The majority opinion prohibits the 31 District Attorneys General in Tennessee from evaluating a petition for post-conviction relief, determining that it has some merit, and concluding that it is appropriate to concede a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief.  In so doing, the majority opinion prevents the State’s statutorily designated attorney from negotiating the most favorable settlement of the challenged underlying charges before a post-conviction trial court grants full post-conviction relief.  If a District Attorney General must wait until the post-conviction trial court rules that post-conviction relief must be granted, the District Attorney General, as in the case sub judice, might very well have a difficult task to locate witnesses and/or physical evidence to present in a new trial.  Consequently the State would be required to negotiate from a position of weakness as a result of mandating that the court first grant post-conviction relief prior to the State negotiating a new settlement of the challenged offenses.  As a result, the majority opinion undermines the authority of each District Attorney General in this state. 

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Mark Alan Kirby, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The agreement provided that Defendant’s sentence was three years as a Range I standard offender. The manner of service of the sentence was reserved for determination by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the entire sentence to be served in confinement. Defendant has appealed, asserting the trial court should have granted full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Henderson County jury convicted the Petitioner, John N. Moffitt, of reckless aggravated assault, as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault, for slashing the victim’s arm with a pocketknife following a property dispute. State v. John N. Moffitt, No. W2014-02388-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 369379, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 29, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 24, 2016). This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal; however, this Court also reduced the amount of restitution that the trial court ordered and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of restitution that the Petitioner could pay. Id. On March 10, 2020, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that his conviction for reckless aggravated assault was “an illegal and unconstitutional conviction” because the indictment failed to allege “recklessly,” which the Petitioner contends is a “required mental state indicating a lesser kind of culpability” than that required for aggravated assault. The Petitioner alleged that he was entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations because he was “totally unaware of the fact about [sic] the illegal and unconstitutional conviction.” The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that it was time-barred and that the Petitioner’s allegations did not constitute new evidence and thus did not toll the statute of limitations. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Mother challenges the trial court’s granting of father’s petition to modify the residential parenting schedule to give him equal residential parenting time. She argues that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s well-being in a meaningful way. We have determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings that there was a material change of circumstances under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(C) and that modification of the parenting schedule was in the best interest of the child.    

Napoleon Emmanuale Person, Defendant, appeals from the trial court’s judgment revoking his probation and placing his original sentences into effect. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Following the trial court’s denial of interlocutory appeals pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State sought extraordinary appeals pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure in the above cases, which this court granted and consolidated. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying the District Attorney General’s Office for the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District after finding that Derek T. Grooms and Allen Hatley were defendants in cases prosecuted by this district attorney’s office but were also victims in other cases prosecuted by this office. After review, we reverse the orders of the trial court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The Petitioner, Zakkawanda Zawumba Moss, appeals the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his six convictions of first degree premediated murder and six consecutive life sentences. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that we should remand the case to the post-conviction court in order to provide the Petitioner an opportunity to present additional proof in support of his petition. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we disagree with the Petitioner and affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

Appellant prison inmate appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of certiorari. On appeal, Appellant asserts that the board failed to comply with the Uniform Disciplinary Procedure in imposing discipline in this case. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant relief, we affirm. 

The Petitioner, Susan Jo Walls, appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s denial of her post-conviction petition, seeking relief from her convictions of first degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder and resulting effective life sentence.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this contract action, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff logging company’s complaint for breach of contract, determining that the defendant landowner had been within his rights to terminate the parties’ agreement because (1) the contract, which had been drafted by the owner of the logging company, was not sufficiently specific to be enforceable and (2) the logging company had violated what was an unambiguous section of the contract requiring that the logging company follow directions concerning the logging operation given by the landowner’s property manager. The logging company has appealed. Having determined that the parties’ contract is enforceable, we reverse the trial court’s first basis for dismissal of the logging company’s breach of contract claim. However, we affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment in its entirety.

Former employee sued her former employer for retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, disability discrimination, and religious discrimination. Former employee voluntarily dismissed the religious discrimination claim prior to trial; the jury returned a verdict in favor of the former employee on only the retaliatory discharge claim, awarding total damages of $15,500.00, inclusive of punitive damages. Former employee then sought an award of over $100,000.00 in attorney’s fees under the applicable statutes, which the trial court reduced to $12,500.00, the same amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury. Former employee appeals only the attorney’s fee award. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal involves a licensure disciplinary action.  The Tennessee Board of Nursing charged an advanced practice registered nurse with overprescribing controlled substances.  After a contested case hearing, the Board found the nurse practitioner guilty of violations of Tennessee’s nursing rules.  However, during the deliberations of the Board, one member conducted her own research.  She observed that her findings had “changed her mind” and shared the information with the other panel members.  The Board subsequently imposed a much-reduced sanction than what was sought by the State.  After the administrative law judge twice denied the State’s motions for mistrial, the parties filed appeals with the chancery court.  Upon review, the trial court determined that the procedural errors in the record, including the introduction of extrinsic prejudicial information, constituted an abuse of discretion that affected the merits of the Board’s decision.  The court reversed and remanded the matter for a new contested case hearing to be heard before and deliberated by a different Board panel.  We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Yolanda Tucker, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault,1 a Class C felony, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102, in Shelby County Criminal Court. Following the Defendant’s testimony at her guilty plea hearing, the trial court denied her request for judicial diversion and imposed a sentence of three years to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court committed plain error in denying her statutory right to allocution and requiring her to testify under oath in order to request judicial diversion, and that (2) the trial court erred in failing to adequately explain its reasoning for denying the Defendant’s application for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that multiple grounds for termination were proven and that termination is in the best interest of the children. We reverse one ground for termination but otherwise affirm and remand for further proceedings.

While I concur with the end result reached by the majority in this case, I write separately to note my disagreement with the the majority’s suggestion that the split of authority surrounding In re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 3058280 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018) and In re Ayden S., No. M2017-01185-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 2447044 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018), has been fully resolved in favor of In re Amynn K. See, e.g., In re Allyson P., No. E2019-01606-COA-R3-PT, 2020 WL 3317318, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2020) (following In re Ayden S. and reversing the trial court’s decision to terminate a mother’s parental rights based upon this ground when the proof showed that mother was unable to assume custody of her child but was not unwilling). As I perceive it, this split remains clear and irreconcilable.

This appeal concerns a noncompetition agreement. The Total Garage Store, LLC (“TGS”) sued former employee Nicholas C. Moody (“Moody”) in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”). TGS alleged that Moody violated his noncompetition agreement (“the Agreement”). At the end of a hearing on TGS’s motion for a temporary injunction held 35 days after suit was filed, the Trial Court invoked Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.04(7) to declare that the hearing was on the merits of the case, not just the injunction. The Trial Court found the Agreement enforceable and entered an injunction order. Later, TGS filed a motion for contempt against Moody alleging that he violated the order. After a hearing, the Trial Court found Moody guilty of six counts of criminal contempt. The Trial Court also awarded damages to TGS. Moody appeals. Because the record does not reflect that Moody received adequate notice that the injunction hearing also would be on the merits, we vacate the Trial Court’s judgment as it pertains to Moody’s alleged violation of the Agreement. However, this does not and did not entitle Moody to ignore the temporary injunction, and we affirm the Trial Court in its finding Moody guilty of criminal contempt. We therefore affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, the Trial Court’s judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

This case arises from a breach of contract dispute involving the construction of two storage buildings. Among other issues is whether Appellee’s actions were “unfair or deceptive” pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court ultimately found that there was a breach of contract, but that Appellee’s actions were not deceptive and dismissed the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim. Appellant now appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this negligence action arising from the plaintiff’s injuries sustained while attempting to traverse the aisle of a moving school bus, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment following a determination that (1) the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the defendants had breached any duty of care to the plaintiff and (2) alternatively, any reasonable fact-finder could only conclude that the plaintiff was at least fifty percent (50%) at fault for her injuries. In so finding, the trial court declined to consider the plaintiff’s captioned “Declaration” in part because it failed to meet the affidavit requirements of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.06. In filing her “Declaration” in support of her opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiff sought to amend her prior deposition testimony concerning the location of her fall. The trial court additionally denied the plaintiff’s “Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted” after the plaintiff averred that the defendants had failed to respond to the plaintiff’s initial requests for admission for over five-hundred days. The plaintiff has appealed. Having determined that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the defendants’ breach of duty of care and comparative fault, we reverse the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff’s “Declaration” should not be considered. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s “Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted.”